Medicalodges Kinsley
620 Winchester Avenue, Kinsley, KS 67547 · For profit - Corporation · 42 certified beds · (620) 659-2156 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jul 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $53,580 in federal fines (most recent 2024-11-20)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 14.7% | 17.9% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.5% | 4.9% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 4.4% | 1.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 6.0% | 2.9% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 5.3% | 6.5% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 4.3% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.1% | 16.2% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.7% | 23.2% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.8% | 95.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.6% | 4.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 36.1% | 22.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.5% | 18.1% | 17.1% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.06 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 3% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 42 beds and averages 20.9 residents a day — about 50% occupied, or roughly 21 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 6.00 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.97 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.39 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 5.48 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.21 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.17 to 0.49 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 54% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-11-20 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility reported a census of 22 residents with 10 residents sampled and one resident reviewed for pain management and two additional residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to assess pain and failed to take appropriate action to manage severe pain despite repeated complaints from Resident (R)74. Additionally, the facility lacked effective communication between nurses, doctors, and other healthcare providers regarding R74's pain management. This failure led to R74 reporting waves of severe pain over approximately a month, until her death on [DATE], and placed R74 in immediate jeopardy. Findings Included: - Review of the Electronic Health Record (EHR), documented R74 had diagnoses of incisional hernia (occurs when the abdominal muscles or connective tissue weaken or gap at the site of a surgical incision, allowing abdominal contents to protrude. This can happen weeks, months, or years after the surgery) and osteoarthritis…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-02 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility reported a census of 24 residents, with four residents reviewed for abuse. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 1 remained free from verbal abuse and mistreatment. This deficient practice placed the resident at risk for fear and decreased quality of life.Findings included:- R1's Electronic Health Record (EHR) documented diagnoses that included unspecified dementia (a progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory and confusion).R1's 12/13/24 Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of seven, which indicated severely impaired cognition. The assessment documented R1 utilized a wheelchair for locomotion and was dependent on staff for shower/bathing and toileting hygiene. R1 required substantial/maximal assistance for all other cares except eating, which was performed independently. The assessment documented R1 was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder.The 12/13/24 Delirium CAA documented R1 was unable to focus attention and had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-02 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility reported a census of 24 residents, with four residents reviewed for abuse. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse for one resident, Resident (R) 1 when on 06/08/24 at approximately 01:30 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M verbally threatened R1 with physical violence was witnessed by CNA O, however the incident was not reported to Administrative Nurse D until 06/11/25 at approximately 02:00 PM. This deficient practice allowed CNA M to work an additional three shifts, which had the potential to have a negative psychosocial impact for the residents in the facility.Findings included:- R1's Electronic Health Record (EHR) documented diagnoses that included unspecified dementia (a progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory and confusion).R1's 12/13/24 Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of seven, which indicated severely impaired cognition. The assessment documented R1 utilized a wheelchair for locomotion and was dependent on staff…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-11-20 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility reported a census of 22 resident. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to submit complete and accurate staffing information to the federal regulatory agency through Payroll Based Journaling (PBJ) when the facility failed to submit staffing hour data for all nursing personnel by the required deadline. Findings included: - The PBJ report provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services (CMS) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Quarter 1, documented the facility failed to have Licensed Nursing Coverage 24 hour/day on 10/01/24, 10/04/24, 11/23/24, and 12/31/24. Upon review of printed staffing days sheet provided by the facility, the date above it was revealed the facility had proof of RN hours and LN hours for the dates of 10/4/24, 11/23/24, and 12/31/24 but lacked eight hours of RN coverage on 10/01/24. Interview on 11/19/24 a 09:44 AM with Administrative Staff A reported the Director of Nursing can count as RN coverage if the census was less than 60 residents. Administrative Staff A stated 10/01/24 was the only day the facility did not have eight…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-20 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility reported a census of 22 residents. The sample included 10 residents. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to issue accurate and complete Beneficiary Protection Notification forms to Resident (R) 16. Findings included: - On 11/04/24 review of the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage Form CMS-20052 (SNFABN) and the Notification of Medicare Non-Coverage Form 10123(NOMNC- the form used to notify Medicare A participants of their rights to appeal and the last covered date of service). The SNFABN had the incorrect dates on the form and lacked cognitively intact R16's signature, the family member signed the form. The facility lacked a signed NOMNC for R16. During an interview on 11/14/24 at 07:45 AM, Administrative Staff A reported there was no NOMNC issued for R16 when discharged from therapy. She reported R16 started therapy 06/06/24 and last cover day was 06/27/24 from therapy. A SNFABN was given to resident with the incorrect dates of 07/22/24 to pay out of pocket. The SNFABN form was signed on 07/16/24 by family member…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-20 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility reported a census of 22 residents with 10 residents sampled. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to identify a significant change and complete an assessment for two residents reviewed for significant change assessments. Resident (R) 19 had a decline with ambulation, toileting hygiene, transfers, bed mobility and dressing. R11 had a decline with ambulation, transfers, toileting hygiene, and bed mobility. This deficient practice had the potential to lead to uncommunicated needs, which could lead to negative impacts on the resident's physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. Findings included: - Resident (R)19's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed a diagnosis, which included dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The 06/26/24 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of five, which indicated severely impaired cognition. R19 had a total mood severity score of 00, indicating no depression and he had no behaviors noted. R19 required set up…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-20 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility reported a census of 22 residents with 10 residents sampled. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to complete a weekly skin assessment for one resident. Observation during the survey revealed Resident (19) with a dressing on his right elbow and no skin notes, or progress notes in the Electronic Health Record (EHR) regarding the right elbow dressing. This deficient practice had the potential to lead to uncommunicated needs, which could lead to negative impacts on the resident's physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. Findings included: - Resident (R) 19's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The 06/26/24 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of five, which indicated severely impaired cognition. R19 had a total mood severity score of 00, indicating no depression and no behaviors noted. R19 required set up for eating and required supervision assistance with ADLs such as ambulating…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-20 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility reported a census of 22 residents with 10 included in the sample and five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use. Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the consultant pharmacist identified Residents (R) 16 lacked administration for heart medication. Findings included: - The Physicians Orders dated 06/08/24 revealed the diagnosis of atrioventricular block (a slow heart rate that occurs because of a malfunction with the heart's electrical system). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The resident required assistance with toileting, showers, and mobility. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) reviewed from 07/01/24 to 10/31/24 revealed an order for vericiguat (a medication used in adults for heart failure) five milligram (mg) daily. The MAR lacked documentation for 70 days of the review period, which indicated staff did…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility reported a census of 22 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in a sanitary manner to prevent possible food-borne illness to the residents of the facility. Findings included: - Observation of the kitchen and food storage areas on 11/12/24 at 12:30 PM, revealed the following areas of concern: Bowls placed upright and not covered on the cart. There were no foot operated trash cans by the hand washing area. Dry cereal container was not labeled with a date. Apple Cider vinegar was not labeled with a date. A bread bag was opened without a date. An opened and not labeled bag of cream of wheat. Several bags of pasta were opened and were not labeled with an opened date. Opened box of individually wrapped cookies that were not dated when they were opened and were past the expiration date of 11/06/24. The freezers had assorted cookie batter or muffin batter without a date or a label. The freezer had assorted ice treats that were not labeled with a date when box was opened. The refrigerator contained…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-01-19 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
The facility reported a census of 20 residents. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to use the services of a registered nurse for at least 8 hours a day, seven days a week, as required, for five days of the six months reviewed. This had the potential to affect all residents. Findings included: - Review of the nursing schedule and staffing sheets on 03/13/22, 03/26/22, 04/23/22, 05/08/22 and 05/21/22, revealed no Registered Nurse (RN) worked. The documentation revealed Licensed Practical Nurses scheduled. Interview with Administrative Nurse B on 01/19/23 at 11:50 AM, Administrative Nurse B reported the facility attempted to have a Registered Nurse for 8 hours a day and verified the facility lacked the required RN coverage. The facility did not provide a policy for Staffing 0n 01/19/23. The facility failed to ensure the use of a Registered Nurse as required, for five of the 6 month reviewed, to ensure the provision of adequate cares to the residents of the facility.
- Potential for harm · D2023-01-19 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility reported a census of 20 residents with 12 included in the sample. that included one resident reviewed for respiratory care. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure necessary respiratory care and services on the one Resident (R)10 reviewed, who required inhalation respiratory treatments, to prevent possible respiratory illness. Findings included: - The Physician Orders for Resident (R)10, dated 12/22 revealed the following diagnosis chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (progressive and irreversible condition characterized by diminished lung capacity and difficulty or discomfort in breathing). The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of two, indicating severely impaired cognition. R10 required extensive assistance with one-person physical assistance with transfers, limited assistance with one -person physical assist with dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. Review of the Care Plan…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2021-05-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility reported a census of 21 residents. The facility had one main kitchen where food was stored and prepared for one dining room. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure dietary staff who worked in the kitchen wore a hairnet. The facility also failed to properly store food items in a refrigerator and freezers by the failure to ensure all food items were dated after being opened. These failures had the ability to affect all residents in the facility. Findings included: - During the initial environmental tour of the dietary department on 05/06/21 at 08:21 AM the following concerns identified: 1. Twenty-four chocolate shakes with instructions printed on the carton to keep no longer than 14 days unfrozen, were found in the 2-door refrigerator in the kitchen area, thawed and not dated. 2. Two opened bags of what appeared to be chicken nuggets with no open date marked on the bags were found in the two-door stainless steel freezer located in the dry storage room. 3. An open bag of tater tots with no open date marked on the bag was found in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-05-12 · tag F0943 — isolatedGive their staff education on dementia care, and what abuse, neglect, and exploitation are; and how to report abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility census totaled 21 residents. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all facility staff were trained in Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (ANE) annually. Findings included: - Review of staff training records for Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) D lacked ANE training evidence from 04/01/20 through 04/01/2021. Interview with Administrative Nurse A and Administrative Staff B on 05/12/21 at 01:03 PM revealed staff receive prompts on what trainings to complete each month through an online training service. Administrative Staff B monitored all trainings via audits, but it was the responsibility of the staff member to complete the trainings. CNA D was reminded about completing the ANE training as it was past-due. The ANE training was also discussed at a staff meeting, which CNA D did not attend. Review of the 09/2017 facility policy entitled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation Policy revealed all new employees shall have training during orientation, and all employees shall receive training at least annually, and as the need arose. Verification of training…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$53,580 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $53,580 — penalty dated 2024-11-20
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to MEDICALODGES, INC. — 18 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
The other 17 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.7★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEDICALODGES INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 05/04/1966 |
| DREILING, ANGELA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| BUTLER, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2003 |
| COX, GAREN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/26/1998 |
| DOLL, GAYLE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 03/10/2005 |
| HINES, SCOTT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/19/2009 |
| MARSHALL, CAROL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/27/2006 |
| OTT, RON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/15/2006 |
| CARDENAS, STACI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/28/2013 |
| COOVER, TERESA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/21/2017 |
| LAGER, SHANNON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/15/2013 |
| LANTZ, KATHLEEN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/22/2007 |
| MCBRIDE, TRAVIS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/15/2012 |
| ROHLING MCCORD, CATHERINE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/09/2000 |
| WAECHTER HARMON, LORI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/31/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 15 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $114K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in KS
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Kansas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 175275. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-11-20, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.